Although I am known in these parts as a Quentin Tarantino hater, let me just emphasize that I think Tarantino is a unique stylist with a keen instinct for catchy dialogue. He is also a master of turning a scene on its ear in order to maximize tension.
That said, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is self-indulgent nonsense.
The film is essentially about nothing at all, but it is tangentially about a group of people trying to thwart the Nazi takeover of Europe during World War 2. It stars Brad Pitt in a ridiculous, “look at me” performance as Lt. Aldo Raine, who is leading a small battalion of Jewish-American fighters into France to kill as many Nazi soldiers as they can. Their ruthlessness becomes legendary among the Nazis, catching the attention of bloodhound Jew killer Landa (Christoph Waltz). The Basterds eventually intersect the revenge plot created by a Jewish cinema owner named Shoshanna (Melanie Laurent), who intends to burn the elite Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler.
With BASTERDS, Tarantino has made his fourth film in a row about nothing more than revenge. And like the KILL BILL films, BASTERDS takes place in some sort of fantasy-land slightly divorced from reality. This might be fine, except that BASTERDS traffics in some truly stomach-turning gore that renders the fantasy elements quite out of place.
Tarantino basically rewrites history here, but, to supporters of this film, I ask: What is the point?? Is it simply to be clever or cute? Or simply because he can?? It’s a fair and unanswerable question given what’s on display here, which vacillates between comical and brutal without any regard to tone or reason.
The performances are almost all atrocious. Pitt mugs endlessly, delivering each line with a Southern accent so horribly over-the-top that you cannot ever allow yourself to believe it is anyone other than Brad Pitt playing dress-up. And why on Earth would Tarantino employ Eli Roth as an actor? He smirks his way through this pitiful role like a seventh-rate George Clooney. Worst of all is a cameo by Mike Myers as a British officer, which gives Myers an unwelcome opportunity to dust off his Austin Powers delivery, replete with pregnant pauses. Atrocious.
In the midst of the awful performances is a jewel: Christoph Waltz shines as the terrifying Col. Landa. It is a star-making turn, and one guaranteed to be remembered at Oscar time. Remarkable.
I could go on forever about the cheesy seventies subtitles and the horrible musical cues (David Bowie? Ennio Morricone?), but one early moment perfectly encapsulates why I despise this movie so much. In the scene, Pitt is telling his troops that they are going to dismember the Nazis and make them afraid. He then says that the Basterds will “torture them,” while Tarantino cuts to a shot of Eli Roth … a referential wink to Roth’s reputation as a torture-porn director. Do we really need this kind of blatant, “look at me” bullshit in every single Tarantino film? Can’t the guy just make a fucking movie that tells a decent and worthwhile story without loading all this extraneous crap into it?
More than anything, BASTERDS upsets me because Tarantino attempts a few incredible moments within this film. One such moment is in the conclusion, when Shoshanna’s face is projected on the billows of smoke from the burning theater … excellent. Unfortunately, moments like that one are lost in the endless vapidity of the rest of the film.
People might try to argue that the film is a fantasy, and therefore meant to be pure fun. Oookay … well, one could say the same thing about MR. MOM, but at least that film didn’t try to be something more, nor did it desperately try to pander to the art and festival crowds.
Simply put, Tarantino makes art films about nothing. They’re fancy, overly-long, loaded with dialogue, and they have absolutely no point or purpose. INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS has some interesting ideas and one terrific character, but it otherwise has no reason to exist.
31 Comments
I think I’ve commented about this already. His films work on 2 levels. – Some regular moviegoers just like it as a dumb flick and a lot of his fans share the same favourite flicks and like their style. I wish he did a more elaborate movie but that doesn’t change the fact that I love the fact that his films are directed at people like me (ie. who share fav films with him – namely the bad stuff from the 60’s and 70’s). If you don’t share his taste his films will obviously suck to you as they are directed to a specyfic group (Its a bit like Tarantino started to make genre movies – b movies made better).
Also I think he also prooves a point to many that a good movie doesn’t have to mean anything. I know you look for very deep deep meaning in movies but some directors think otherwise. There are many classics that you might like (and for sure many people like) that have no meaning and sometimes even have a lot of weaknesses (imho hitcher would be a good example here)..
While I understand Tarantino’s love of the B movie genre, I am having a hard time understanding why he would toil in this genre. There are roughly 700 films released every year. There are plenty of B movies in there. Why try and make the best B movie when you are capable of making the best “A movie?” If you have seen Jackie Brown, you realize Q is capable of so much more than toiling in B movie hell.
When you have seen a masterpiece, you know it. It creates an atmosphere which lingers after leaving the theater. If you have seen Nolan’s work, you know what I’m talking about. It’s like after going to a concert and still feeling the music’s vibes after leaving. Now, while German Expressionism proved there should be no rules in film, there actually is one steadfast rule. A film’s elements must not be scattered. A B movie is inherently scattered. Although I do understand the cult love of the genre, it should not be elevated to such heights as it has.
Tarantino has many fans, but these fans have confused there love of the director for their love of film.
Uh, NOLAN is the best example you can think of when it comes to masterpieces!? The man is equally as derivative as Tarantino, but at least Tarantino has the creativity to put new spins on his inspirations and has a discernable style of his own.
Very good counter-response Ray and I must admit I agree, much of what you deplore in Tarantino’s work is fair criticism.
Tarantino is a flawed genius – like Peter Pan – who refuses to grow up and adapt or adhere to classical filmmaking rules like the marvellous Christopher Nolan. It is equally frustrating because with JACKIE BROWN it did indeed appear he would evolve – in the way Woody Allen evolved from slapstick to a more mature form of comedy.
After the brilliance of his early films and TRUE ROMANCE screenplay (even FROM DUSK TIL DAWN was great fun) he was given too much kudos and creative control, consequently becoming monstrously over-indulgent. With some serious editing one KILL BILL film would have been great and DEATHPROOF was just plain rubbish. Then again, the warning signs were there – if anyone cares to recall FOUR ROOMS.
BUT, despite some on-the-nose expositional dialogue, ridiculous Mike Myers cameo and too many overt movie references INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is a fantastic film from beginning-to-end. Definitely his best film since JACKIE BROWN in my view.
I cannot see what the issue is using music from other movies – as long as it works – and it did! Tarantino’s like a DJ at the turntable playing his favourite tracks on screen. The Bowie song worked too. It reminded me of Peter Weir’s placement of Jean Michel-Jarre’s OXYGEN in GALLIPOLI. The use of contemporary music initially jarred but then heightened the drama of the scene and gave the character(s) a powerful theme.
The casting of Roth does smack of nepotistic ‘old pals’ act but the role is not a lead and Roth certainly looks the part as striking Donnie Donowitz. Aside from Myers, I thought the performances were very strong (agreed Waltz is the best thing in it). Tarantino should be praised because he has always cast his films with actors (many unknown or forgotten – Robert Forster/Pam Grier) who are perfect for the role. Pitt’s performance was a decent bit of ’schtick’ although I think an older actor should’ve played that part – but Lee Marvin is dead. As to Pitt ‘mugging endlessly’ – I enjoyed it because Pitt was having so much fun. Waltz too is having a lot of fun and is indeed guilty of stealing or ‘mugging’ many scenes in a way Anthony Hopkins did in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.
I agree with much of what Ray says but I think it’s time to lower our expectations of Tarantino’s work as a filmmaker. Although the opening of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, RESERVOIR DOGS and JACKIE BROWN suggest he does have the ability to write believable characters experiencing ‘real’ desire and emotion on screen DON’T expect meaning OR maturity as he is incapable of doing it for a whole film.
QT makes highly entertaining, OTT movies ABOUT movies featuring characters who have walked out of other movies and into his movies. He’s like a comedian, ever-hungry for a laugh, shock or killer-punchline during a scene/set-piece. Like many jokes you either get them or you don’t or you simply just don’t find them funny. INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is a brilliantly constructed ‘joke’: very funny, very well-told and brutally entertaining.
Chase – I don’t think you have many 60’s/70s classic b movies being created every year as those are the ones Quentin references.
Norbert – you will have to excuse my lack of B movie knowledge. While I wish I could profess an interest in all of film, there are just certain depths I will not go. Personally, I am into both the original golden age and second golden age in the 70’s style of film making, when it comes to older style appreciation. While I can appreciate B movie love, I just do not consider it a top film genre. Although, there is always an ebb and flow with genres.
@ Paul – But can’t you see that some of your points you mention in support of the film – like Brad Pitt’s performance is good because he looked like “he was having so much damn fun” – are not about the film ITSELF, but rather the extraneous stuff on the outside of it? It would be like praising CANNONBALL RUN because Dom DeLuise and Burt Reynolds were old pals just goofing off.
Which is my point exactly. INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is an art-house version of CANNONBALL RUN in terms of meaning … they both mean nothing, and are simply vanity projects in order to let some well-connected stars have a creative whack-off. This film would never have been made if it didn’t come from Tarantino and Pitt, which is a testament to just how stupid this movie really is. It has no merit on its own … it only stands by the favor its stars and director have with the audience.
Chase – MEMENTO, derivative how? And THE PRESTIGE was a really impressive adaptation too. BATMAN BEGINS/THE DARK KNIGHT have received a much praise – arguably OTT – but in the pure context of comic book adaptations they rank as some of the best.
Nolan — with Chan-wook Park, Shane Meadows, Paul Thomas Anderson, Brad Bird, Alfonso Cuaron, Fernando Mereilles (to name a few-I’m sure there are more) — is one of the most impressive filmmakers to have emerged in the last decade or so.
@ Ray – again, totally see with your point and I agree Raine should not have been played by Pitt. However, I did enjoy his performance nonetheless.
Besides, aren’t most films ‘vanity’ projects – be they producers/directors/actors delivering screenplays/books/comics they love. Film is ultimately a business and the business is to entertain (while making money of course). And what filmmakers/actors work with people they hate.
I love ‘original’ movies that strive for deeper meaning too but I also like my films to entertain. With Tarantino you get STYLE over STYLE – so much so the STYLE becomes the SUBSTANCE. This has worked more often than not for him but has backfired badly with DEATHPROOF and FOUR ROOMS. If you want meaning from every movie you watch then perhaps you should avoid Tarantino’s.
Fantastic comparison between the CANNONBALL RUN and INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS by the way. That made me laugh out loud.
Memento scores points for originality, but falls short in terms of its gimmicky structure and some shoddy dialogue. It’s wonderful the first time, but does’t hold up on repeated viewings. Same goes for Prestige. Batman Begins remains his best film – he achieves just the right balance between fantasy superhero and logical plausability. Dark Knight treads one step too far in the wrong direction and exposes his weak storytelling ability. He plays the superhero card when he needs to gloss over a plot point, yet cloaks the rest of the film in a ‘realistic’ modern-day setting. It remains his weakest effort.
It would be unfair to include him on that list of modern greats, as they all have a distinct style of their own, and tell passionate, largely original, and coherent stories. Even their weakest efforts have a unique style, which Nolan has yet to develop.
Paul L. – You have me confused with Bob. Nolan’s work is so far from derivative it’s crazy. The Prestige is one of the best films of the 21st Century, period.
Apologies Chase. I am supposed to be working and flicking between screens – but this is far more interesting :-)
No Worries Paul…if you’re like me and know your path will lead to the film industry, then this is indeed far more interesting than work and/or school.
Bob – you’re summation of Nolan’s films have credence.
I think in terms of characterisation and the duality of man/doppleganger theme prevalent throughout his work he proves he has something definite to say. His use of the unreliable narrator (MEMENTO/PRESTIGE/INSOMNIA) also proves his storytelling abilities. Analysis of heroes/villains and corporate corruption are also tropes of his.
While his visual style echoes noir and expressionist cinema it is not merely derivative, but deeply evocative and powers his stories along. Like Tarantino, his casting is usually excellent too.
I must admit though the trailer for INCEPTION did look a bit MATRIXY. So perhaps you’re right, Bob, and my love for MEMENTO (disagree it was gimmicky btw) and THE PRESTIGE is blinding me to the fact that Nolan is a fine genre moviemaker, rather than fully paid-up member of the good old-fashioned ‘Auteur’ club.
I think your review explains why Tarantino does what he does. “It’s an art film but he does all this other stuff that just doesn’t fit in” ok…. I thought we moved past this point already in regards to his work. everytime I read a review of his film’s its like “the nerve of that guy.” most of the point’s you made seem like minor points to me, as if you saw a detail you thought was stupid and it kept repeating itself in your brain as the film kept going. the historical inaccuracy at the end was just brilliant to me. every ww2 film has the same ending, which in a sense takes a little away from the experience of seeing the film. the audience kept thinking alright this is cool but i know these characters are going to fail in this mission, but then they actually defy your expectations. that in itself is pretty revolutionary and reason enough for this film to exist.
The problem with him is that hidden in most of decent films is a great film. Like you said, he does play with interesting themes, and there’s always an interesting idea powering him along. His problem is his writing – the guy can’t really structure a film in a solid enough way or give us entirely convincing dialogue. In Memento it was occassionally too forced (”I’m going to USE you now!”), in Dark Knight it was too expository. Dark Knight is also the biggest offender in awful, awful structure. The entire third act is a flat dud. I can appreciate thematically why he felt the need to cram Two Face in at the end, but between Eckhart’s bizarre performance and the choppiness of it, it was just awful. Pity, cause I genuinely think Dark Knight could have been the ultimate superhero film, and maybe with a stronger, less self-important writer on his side, the film could have had some real Oscar chances.
While the structure shook slightly with the late entry of TWO-FACE – the final act of DARK KNIGHT worked brilliantly in dovetailing the various story and thematic strands. TWO-FACE was necessary as he REFLECTED literally the good/evil dualilty of both Batman and the Joker. My interpretation was that Two-Face was JOKER/BATMAN combined.
Nolan, like Tarantino, is a fine filmmaker working within the Hollywood system, providing quality entertainment with an eye of giving audiences something far more interesting than the majority of generic/derivative fayre served up in the multiplexes.
Perhaps, the crazy fanboy responses to them being uber-god-like filmmakers is over-the-top and it’s good to get perspective and judge them film-by-film.
Inglourious Basterds is nothing more than Tarantino masturbating in public. We are asked not to look at the film (or the act of one pleasuring himself for all to see), instead he is asking (in fact begging) us to look at the man doing it.
To say this movie is horrible is just stupid i can see why someone could not like it but in no way was it a horrible movie.This reviewer is overly negative of all the films he reviews and i believe he decided he wouldn’t like it before he even went to go watch it.I liked thought it was tons of fun
I never said the movie is horrible. But I think it is a mess.
a few scenes in this movie are unquestionably brilliant especially once upon a time in nazi-occupied france. i dont understand how even though u liked many scenes the title of this post is “inglourious basterds sucks”. not that far from saying its horrible
Like I said, it was necessary thematically, but they didn’t give it the development and screentime it deserved. Instead they waste a good 20 minutes on an almost completely redundant Hong Kong sequence that ultimately could have been written around, and one of our lead character’s tragic downfall is battling for screentime with a poorly written, anticlimactic scene with a bunch of badly chosen EXTRAS. Again, I can see why the ferry scenes were thematically relevant, but dramatically they were as flaccid as an old man’s cock and served no purpose but to be a cheap manipulative flatline to what should have been a kick in the gut ending. Also, why was Two-Face so stagey? Nolan works so hard at establishing some sort of realism, and makes Joker plausibly deformed, and yet Two-Face is half man half mummy with a perfect divide down the middle, suit and all. No change in speech from Eckhart except for a little more bat-voice, even though half his mouth is missing! Eh, just seems like the filmmakers ran out of steam.
Really good argument Bob but the movies Nolan makes even when he does “run out of steam” are still far better than most of the rubbish coming out of Hollywood. While he’s not my favourite filmmaker he’s definitely one who you know will give you value for money for your £8 — or more if you get mugged up the West End in London.
Yeah agreed, I’ll probably catch Inception opening week. Just don’t think he’s the second coming or particularly memorable. Hopefully he’ll prove me wrong in the future.
I adored Kill Bill ferociously. I’ve seen Pulp Fiction at least 100 times. Quentin is very talented. But IB was a vain attempt by QT to show off his knowledge of art house films and B movies.
I was fiercly bored and utterly disappointed.
So, Wray or Jay or what was his name again thinks IB sucks..Big deal Quentin Tarantino will weep about it later.
What’s the point? ENTERTAINMENT!!
Remember when movies were considered good ole’ fashioned escapist entertainment? Haters indeed! Loser should be happy Tarantino gives his whiney bitch ass something to complain about. Make your own film tard boy!
I agree with most if not all your points. Film is way too long with too much pointless dialogue. The entire scene with mike myers is absolutely dreadful and would have made me leave the theatre had I not paid 11 bucks. Also Tarantino cut off some of his coolest characters in the bar shoot out scene. I was totally expecting that crazy dude with the knife to do some major damage later; really dissapointing. Way too much focus on dialogue and not enough on entertainment value. Ppl will either love this movie or hate it, there’s no in between. Def. a rental quality movie and not the masterpeice I see some critics calling it.
This movie was like watching a 5th grade boy reenact WWII. The dialogue was miserable, and the whole point of the story gets lost in the 7,000 story lines. It was one gory explosion after another with face carving and Brad Pitt pretending to be an actor shoved in between.
Rubbish. Holes in the plot you could drive a truck through. C’mon, are we to believe that Adolf Hitler only had 2 guards in an entire cinema protecting him?
Very disappointing.
What fucking gore? There was two scenes of some assholes getting scalped and the shit at the end with the swastika in the head. There wasn’t that much gore, and it’s supposed to be fucking entertaining not realisitc. Do you want to see what real soldiers go through in times of war where they camp out for hours and then one of them gets killed by an IED or do you want to go see a movie for the sake of entertainment. This movie was entertaining, the lines were good and if you weren’t trying so hard to hate it because everyone else liked you just might enjoy the fucking thing.